[Ular boys] Eric Gannon, implied others - F3

Moved to https://discord.me/rls #complaints

[Ular boys] Eric Gannon, implied others - F3

Postby krpajda » 24 Feb 2019, 20:49

IC Name: Eric Gannon
Rules Broken: F3 - territory agreements are not allowed
Description: Admitted to making agreements with other factions on when to cap enforcers.
Starting a cap without actually trying to win a point would be wasting the highlights and therefore against the rules as per viewtopic.php?f=15&t=16556&p=196603#p196603
Of course, it can't be wasting anything if you already agreed with everyone else that you aren't going to cap, right?
Proof:
Steam ID: STEAM_0:1:59189988

As i see it, any agreement concerning matters of territory (especially capping) is a territory agreement and therefore against F3. It does not matter if you agree with a faction when you cap them, or you agree with a faction when you cap someone else. Even if this was not against the rules, you admit you effectively wasted the highlights, which would be against an unspecified rule that keeri mentions in the post i linked.
Last edited by krpajda on 24 Feb 2019, 21:22, edited 1 time in total.
tech-thug-general-mechanic-president-officer-tech-firefighter-private-politician-courier-secretary-sergeant-loyal-major-

Cube the sphere
Wipe off the dust from your eyes
Burn your lies
User avatar
krpajda
=
 
Posts: 3143
Joined: 08 Feb 2014, 19:34
Location: Slovakia
Character: Elisabeth Murosson

Re: [Ular boys] Eric Gannon, implied others - F3

Postby ZamericaZ » 24 Feb 2019, 21:14

I disagree with the way you're interpreting the rule and I do not feel this violates rule F3.

The line about Territory Agreements is about not capping a faction past a certain point. How back in the old days ulars and reapers had an agreement to not cap each other past PIA rig, or ulars and roaches had an agreement not to cap cengkih so roaches could still buy Airsupport.

I believe this PC should just be closed as it is an incorrect interpretation of the rules, should this be a correct interpretation then it is unfair to have any punishment as none of us believed it to be F3

When You Mess With The Gannon, You Get The Cannon
Most likely to overthrow the Ular Boys
Yeah I meme, so what :D
FRC Drive Coach
User avatar
ZamericaZ
=
 
Posts: 845
Joined: 21 Mar 2014, 22:59
Location: 'Murica
Character: Eric Gannon

Re: [Ular boys] Eric Gannon, implied others - F3

Postby krpajda » 25 Feb 2019, 01:41

Now that the rules were clarified I'd like to see action be taken.
While I do not believe that rules should be applied retroactively, you did have to stretch the definition of the rule quite a bit, to a point where it would no longer do what it was first implemented to do, prevent multiple factions from ganging up on one other faction. Because of this, I really have a hard time believing you genuinely thought that setting up a schedule for who gets to cap when is perfectly all right.

Not to mention it still leaves capping with an intention of gaming the system, rather than for its actual purpose, whichever rule that is against. Assumed that's also f3, but it could be 4 and the quoted post doesn't specify
tech-thug-general-mechanic-president-officer-tech-firefighter-private-politician-courier-secretary-sergeant-loyal-major-

Cube the sphere
Wipe off the dust from your eyes
Burn your lies
User avatar
krpajda
=
 
Posts: 3143
Joined: 08 Feb 2014, 19:34
Location: Slovakia
Character: Elisabeth Murosson

Re: [Ular boys] Eric Gannon, implied others - F3

Postby ZamericaZ » 25 Feb 2019, 18:59

krpajda wrote:Now that the rules were clarified I'd like to see action be taken.
While I do not believe that rules should be applied retroactively


So are you asking for punishment be applied to a rule that needed clarified because people didn't interpret it the same as you or not?

It sounds to me like we're both on the same page that you can't retroactively punish someone when the rule needed reworded but you're sending mixed messages.

When You Mess With The Gannon, You Get The Cannon
Most likely to overthrow the Ular Boys
Yeah I meme, so what :D
FRC Drive Coach
User avatar
ZamericaZ
=
 
Posts: 845
Joined: 21 Mar 2014, 22:59
Location: 'Murica
Character: Eric Gannon

Re: [Ular boys] Eric Gannon, implied others - F3

Postby krpajda » 25 Feb 2019, 19:59

It's not like the rule was newly added, so no. There is a reason why there is the rest of the post with the actual explanation.
tech-thug-general-mechanic-president-officer-tech-firefighter-private-politician-courier-secretary-sergeant-loyal-major-

Cube the sphere
Wipe off the dust from your eyes
Burn your lies
User avatar
krpajda
=
 
Posts: 3143
Joined: 08 Feb 2014, 19:34
Location: Slovakia
Character: Elisabeth Murosson

Re: [Ular boys] Eric Gannon, implied others - F3

Postby insidious » 26 Feb 2019, 02:05

The rule was updated because of this incident, thus the other Ular elites do not feel any punishment is warranted, so I recommend closure.

Louise Vuitton - Overseer Mechanic I
Sabine Michaels - Major Pilot & HoD
Sierra Knox - Ghost Pilot II & HoD
User avatar
insidious
II
 
Posts: 35
Joined: 23 Apr 2015, 17:48
Location: HQ
Character: Alexander Payne

Re: [Ular boys] Eric Gannon, implied others - F3

Postby ACuteKittenP » 27 Feb 2019, 16:30

Considering I don't think anyone would have intentionally did this because it's so easily proved via discord messages it was clearly just a miss understanding of a vague gray area in the rules, clarity to the rules have since been made and can be found under Community support (Or more specifically here viewtopic.php?f=15&t=4495&start=80#p199805 for this current PC). The parties involve didn't have a grand malicious intent and no one can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that anyone intended to break any rules with their actions.

With that being said and no punishment being needed in this specific instance I think its safe to lay this PC to rest.


User avatar
ACuteKittenP
35RP
=
 
Posts: 310
Joined: 23 Aug 2014, 18:10
Location: Wales, United Kingdom.
Character: Glynn Ogofgoch Casteris

Re: [Ular boys] Eric Gannon, implied others - F3

Postby keeri » 02 Mar 2019, 23:34

agreements related to territory captures between multiple factions have always been prohibited by rule #F3, repeated offenses will not be tolerated. closed
User avatar
keeri
D
 
Posts: 1445
Joined: 01 Jan 2014, 20:43
Character: Chase Kraino


Return to Player Complaints